MCP Dota 2 Match Analysis Server

get_pro_player_by_name

Fetches detailed information about a professional Dota 2 player by providing their name.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a professional player by name.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "get_pro_player_by_name"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`player`	No
`success`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the function, not behaviors like case sensitivity, handling of unknown names, rate limits, or whether it returns multiple matches. These gaps could lead an agent to misuse the tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it is slightly vague ('detailed information') and could include more useful detail without significantly increasing length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has only one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimal but still incomplete. It lacks usage guidance, behavioral details, and parameter semantics. The output schema covers return structure, but the description does not help an agent decide when this tool is the right choice among many siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only rephrases the parameter name ('by name') without adding meaning. It does not clarify the format (e.g., full name, display name), case sensitivity, or whether partial names are valid. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: getting detailed information about a professional player by name. The verb 'get' and the resource 'professional player by name' are specific and distinguish this from sibling tools like search_pro_player (which likely returns search results) and get_pro_player (which may use an ID).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_pro_player or get_pro_player. The description does not mention prerequisites, exact-match expectations, or when the tool might be inappropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.